MASTER 

NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  93-81223-20 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  1 7,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  In  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  Is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  Institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  If,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  Involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


PHILLIPS,  JOHN  HERBERT 


TITLE: 


SCIENCE  AND  HUMAN 
IMMORTALITY 

PLACE: 

[BIRMINGHAM] 

DA  TE : 

[1 909] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

DIDLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARHHT 


Master  Negative  # 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


108 
Z3 
[  V.2 


>l  '  m     ■  f    I  f      > 


■■^"^ip^»^«»r«^»(" 


■< ,  w  I  I  l| 


1%  *t 


Phillips,  John  Herbert,  1853-1921. 

Science  and  hurian  imnortality,  by  J.  H.  Phil- 
liX)0 ...  ^a  paper  read  before  the  Quid  pro  quo 
club.  Birninghan,  Ala.,  1909n 


12  p. 


22tj-  cm  in  25-|-  en. 


Half  title. 


Volume  of  pamphlets 


|! 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM    SIZE:. 2.5_iYkm_._ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  ,^II^  ' 


REDUCTION     RATIO:         jj><r 
iM/u^b  i-LAUhMENT:    lA   /IIA;    IB     IIB 

DAfE     FILMED: 3JL3.0^^^ INITIALS__i2^P 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARClTpUBLICATION?;.  TMC  wnonnRinnR 


PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGR.  CT 


^^. 


>^ 


V" 

^^, 


r 


Association  for  information  and  image  iManagement 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3        4         5        6         7        8        9       10       11       12       13       14       15   mm 

lllllllllilllllllllillllllllllllMlllMllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli 


1 


Inches 


f\ 


f( 


n 


T 


rrjTT 
2  3  4 


^ 


1.0 

1^  1^-^     Hill  2.2 

I.I 

■iteu 

1.4 

12.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

I  II  i  I  I  I 
5 


MPNUFfiCTURED  TO  RUM  STRNDRRDS 
BY  APPLIED  IMRGE-  INC. 


^' 


.0 


VU5  J  i 


V- 


♦^ 


Science 

and 

Human  Immortality 


By  J.  H.  PHILLIPS, 
Birmingbaiiiy  Ala. 


/fo? 


<r    r  K 


y 


-ts 


i 


. •     r    *• 


^ 


City  Paper  Company 

Printers,  Birmingham.  Alabama 

1909 


4 


Xi 


y  4 


Science  and  Human  Immortality 


*By  J.  H.  Philups,  Birmingham,  Axa. 


The  question  of  human  immortaHty  has  long  been  one 
of  the  world's  greatest  enigmas.  Of  all  the  great  questions 
asked  by  man,  the  most  persistent,  the  most  momentous,  is 
this:  *'Does  my  personality  involve  any  element  that  can 
survive  the  death  of  the  body?"  In  varying  degrees  this 
question  interests  all  mankind, — the  sinner  and  the  saint,  the 
fool  and  the  philosopher,  the  illiterate  peasant  and  the  cul- 
tured man  of  science. 

The  subject  has  usually  been  relegated  to  the  realm  of 
religion  and  metaphysics,  and  for  the  vast  majority  of  man- 
kind, no  doubt,  faith  rather  than  reason  must  ever  be  the  basis 
of  hope  for  a  life  beyond  the  grave. 

In  this  brief  study  I  wish  to  consider  the  attitude  of 
modern  science  towards  this  question  and  to  present  some  of 
the  modern  phases  of  scientific  inquiry  with  special  reference 
to  their   implications   and   future   possibilities. 

Natural  science  professes  to  treat  only  of  that  which  may 
be  tested  by  human  experience  and  explained  by  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  law.  The  majority  of  our  physicists^  have 
therefore  fought  shy  of  the  great  question  of  the  souFs  im- 
mortality, and  have  passed  it  over  without  ceremony  to  theol- 
ogy and  metaphysics.  Huxley  tells  us  that  he  invented  the 
word  "agnostic"  to  denote  people  like  himself,  who  con- 
fessed themselves  hopelessly  ignorant  concerning  a  variety 
of  matters,  about  which  metaphysicians  and  theologians,  both 
orthodox  and  heterdox,  dogmatize  with  the  utmost  confidence. 
One  of  the  questions  covered  by  the  term  "agnostic'  is  that 
of  the  soul's  immortality.  The  word  "agnostic"  is  thus  a 
colorless  term,  used  to  denote  a  lack  of  scientific  evidence 
as  a  basis  of  belief,  and  expresses  the  natural  attitude  of 
science  as  such  with  regard  to  the  matter.  On  the  other 
hand,  John  Fiske,  the  most  profound  and  scientific  exponent 
of  the  evolutionary  theory  that  America  has  yet  produced 
confesses  that  this  question  must  ever  remain  an  aflFair  of  re- 
ligion rather  than  of  science ;  that  "it  is  not  likely  that  we 
shall  ever  succeed  in  making  it  a  matter  of  scientific  demon- 


*A  paper  read  before  the  Quid  Pro  Quo  Club, 


•s 


4H 


stration,  because  we  lack  the  requisite  data."  Many  scientists, 
however,  notwithstanding  the  limitations  of  the  subject,  have 
not  hesitated  to  overleap  the  boundaries  of  the  field  of  experi- 
ence and  to  express  conclusions  that  must  be  regarded  as  dog- 
matic and  irrelevant.  As  an  example  of  the  position  of  this 
class  of  positive  scientists,  I  may  quote  from  Buchner's  Force 
and  Matter:  "In  the  eternal  cycle  of  matters  and  forces, 
nothing  is  mortal;  but  this  only  holds  good  collectively  and 
for  the  whole,  while  the  individual  is  subject  to  unceasing 
changes  of  genesis  and  decay.  While  force  and  matter  as 
such  manifest  their  indestructibility  in  an  incontrovertible 
manner,  which  rests  upon  experiments,  the  same  cannot  be 
said  of  the  soul,  which  is  only  the  effect  or  product  of  a  de- 
finite combination  of  materials  and  forces,  subject  to  dis- 
association.  If  we  break  a  watch,  it  will  no  longer  tell  the 
time  of  day;  if  we  kill  the  nightingale,  its  song  subsides." 

Professor  Haeckel  of  Jena  occupies  practically  the  same 
position,  and  concludes  that  the  **belief  in  the  immortality  of 
the  human  soul  is  a  dogma  which  is  in  hopeless  contradiction 
with  the  most  solid  empirical  truth  of  modern  science."  He 
says,  "when  we  take  the  idea  of  immortality  in  the  widest 
sense  and  extend  it  to  the  totality  of  the  knowable  universe, 
it  has  a  scientific  significance;  it  is  then  not  merely  accept- 
able, but  self-evident  to  the  monistic  philosopher.  In  that 
sense  the  thesis  of  the  indestructibility  and  eternal  duration 
of  all  that  exists  is  equivalent  to  our  supreme  law  of  nature, — 
the  law  of  substance."  ...  "If  we  adhere  to  the  mon- 
istic idea  of  substance, — the  simplest  element  of  our  whole 
world  system,  we  find  energy  and  matter  inseparably  asso- 
ciated in  it.  We  must  therefore  distinguish  in  the  substance 
of  the  soul  the  characteristic  psychic  energy  which  is  all  we 
perceive,  and  the  psychic  matter  which  is  the  inseparable  basis 
of  its  activity, — that  is,  the  living  protoplasm." 

It  is  evident  from  the  statements  of  these  eminent  scien- 
tists that  their  conclusions  are  based,  in  the  first  place,  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  matter  is  the  only  reality  and  the  sole  ex- 
pression of  the  universal  substance;  and,  in  the  second  place, 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  mind,  with  all  its  manifesta- 
tions, is  to  be  interpreted  as  a  product  of  the  physical  or- 
ganism; that  thought  is  a  function  of  the  brain;  that  the  soul 
is  an  effect  with  matter  as  a  cause. 

The  first  of  these  positions  is  obviously  beyond  the  realm 
of  experimental  proof,  and  is  based  upon  assumed  metaphys- 
ical grounds.  If  I  deal  in  metaphysical  terms,  it  is  because 
science  in  her  conclusions  has  shifted  her  position  into  the 
field  of  metaphysics.  Matter  itself  is  an  abstraction ;  it  is  a 
convenient  generalization  invented  to  designate  the  sub- 
stratum of  forces  and  their  operations  in  the  physical 
world.  All  that  we  know  of  matter  are  its  sensible  quali- 
ties which  come  to  us  through  forces — ^gravitative,  cohesive, 


-^ 


s,    f     -^ 


^¥   ^■ 


-c  7  t~ 


a   '  h 


\ 


.  '   "W  ^ 


repulsive,  chemical  and  electrical,  or  through  forms  of  mo- 
tion like  heat,  light  and   sound.     Matter   itself   is  unknown 
and  unknowable;  it  is  merely  a  metaphysical  fiction  used  to 
designate  the  phenomena  of  the  physical  series.     That  mmd 
or  soul  or  spirit  is  likewise  an  abstraction  used  to  designate 
another  parallel  series  of  phenomena  known  as  the  psychical 
series  we  must  also  admit.    But  it  is  obviously  unphilosophic- 
al  for  the  scientist  to  take  one  abstraction  as  a  club  to  des- 
troy another  abstraction.  We  know  not  what  matter  is  in  its  es- 
sence any  more  than  we  know  what  mind  is.     All  that  we 
do  know  consists  of  two  parallel  series  of  phenomena,  the 
physical  and  the  psychical.     Which  is  the  cause  and  which 
the  effect,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing;  nor  have  we  any 
basis  for  asserting  that  either  is  a  cause  and  the  other  an 
effect.     Materialistic  monism  claims  reality  for  the  physical 
series  only,  and  is  expressed  tersely  by  the  famous  remark  of 
Cabaniss  that  "the  brain  secretes  thought  as  the  liver  secretes 
bile."     Spiritualism,  following  the  idealism  of  Berkeley,  as- 
sumes that  the  psychical  series  is  the  only  real,  and  may  be 
expressed   in   the   words   of   Charles   Kingsley— "Your   soul 
makes  your  body  as  the  snail  makes  its  shell."    Against  these 
two  extreme  views,  philosophical  dualism  asserts  the  genetic 
independence  of  both  series,— that  both  mind  and  matter  are 
real  and  separable  essences  =     As  a  compromise  between  the 
dualist  and  the  materialistic  monist,  we  find  the  analytical 
monist,  who  asserts  that  the  universe  is  one,  that  body  and 
soul,  matter  and   spirit,  are  but  different  aspects,  the  out- 
side and  the  inside  of  the  same  thing— the  original  substance ; 
that   nature   is   one,   with   a   dual   aspect,    distinguishable   in 
thought,  but  inseparable  in  existence. 

I  have  given  this  brief  analysis  of  the  fundamental  prob- 
lem of  philosophy  in  order  that  we  may  more  clearly  un- 
derstand the  position  of  those  scientists  who  adhere  to  what 
Professor  James  calls  the  "theory  of  production  as  applied 
to  the  origin  of  the  human  soul.  The  position  of  material- 
istic monism,  as  represented  by  Haeckel  and  Buchner,  seems 
to  be  in  its  last  analysis  practically  the  same  as  that  of  the 
analytical  monist,  who  interprets  matter  and  mind  as  dual  as- 
pects of  the  one  original  substance.  Haeckel  in  defining  his 
position  says:  "Matter,  or  infinitely  extended  substance,  and 
spirit  or  energy,  or  sensitive  and  thinking  substance,  are  the 
fundamental  attributes  or  principal  properties  of  the  all-em- 
bracing divine  essence  of  the  world,  the  universal  substance. 
This  "universal  substance"  is  the  ultimate  monad,— the  some- 
thing elemental  and  indivisible,  and  matter  and  spiritual  en- 
ergv  are  its  co-ordinate  attributes.  His  law  of  substance.— 
the  persistence  of  matter  and  energy,  he  applies  to  the  one 
but  not  to  the  other.  He  concedes  immortality  to  matter, 
one  of  the  attributes  of  the  "universal  substance,  but  de- 
nies it  to  spirit,  its  co-ordinate   attribute.     He  invests  the 


iU 


atom  with  a  spiritual  as  well  as  a  material  property;  the 
latter  he  immortalizes,  the  former  he  destroys.  This  seems 
to  me  to  be  his  fatal  point  of  departure  from  the  tnie  rpirit 
of  the  monistic  interpretation  which  he  professes  to  follow. 
Here  he  diverges  from  the  mature  conclusions  of  Kant,  Vir- 
chow  and  DuBois  Raymond,  and  joins  company  with  Buch- 
ner,  Vogt,  and  Cabaniss.  He  has  a  perfect  right  to  assume 
that  what  cannot  be  scientifically  proven  in  soul  life  does 
not  exist,  but  he  must  carry  the  satne  assumption  into  the 
realm  of  matter.  Consistent  treatment  requires  that  to  both 
matter  and  mind,  as  co-ordinate  attributes,  immortality  must 
be  either  positively  ascribed  or  as  positively  denied.  In  the 
conclusion  of  his  notable  book,  Haeckel  with  noble  candor 
confesses  that  "We  do  not  know  'the  thing  in  itself/  that 
lies  behind  these  knowable  phenomena." 

The  second  contention  of  these  scientists  now  remains  to 
be  considered:  The  organism  of  the  body  in  its  relation  to 
the  mind,  they  hold,  bears  the  relation  of  cause  to  an  effect; 
spirit  is  a  force  or  energy  developed  by  molecular  activity 
in  the  brain.  Perhaps  the  most  explicit  statement  of  the  pro- 
duction theory  is  that  given  by  Cabaniss:  "To  acquire  a 
just  idea  of  the  operations  from  which  thought  results,  we 
must  consider  the  brain  as  a  particular  organ  especially  des- 
tined to  produce  it;  just  as  the  stomach  and  intestines  are 
destined  to  operate  digestion,  the  liver  to  filter  bile,  the 
parotid  and  maxillary  glands  to  prepare  the  salivary  juices. 
The  function  proper  of  the  brain  is  that  of  receiving  each 
particular  impression,  of  attaching  signs  to  it,  of  combining 
the  different  impressions,  of  comparing  them  with  each  other, 
of  drawing  from  them  judgments  and  resolves;  just  as  the 
function  of  the  stomach  is  to  act  upon  the  nutritive  sub- 
stances whose  presence  excites  it,  to  dissolve  them,  and  to 
assimilate  their  juices  to  our  nature.  We  see  the  food  ma- 
terials fall  into  the  viscus  (of  the  stomach)  with  their  own 
proper  qualities;  we  see  them  emerge  with  new  qualities, 
and  we  infer  that  the  stomach  is  really  the  author  of  this 
alteration.  Similarly,  we  see  the  impressions  reaching  the 
brain  by  the  intermediation  of  the  nerves;  they  then  are  iso- 
lated and  without  coherence.  The  viscus  enters  into  action ;  it 
acts  upon  them  and  soon  it  emits  them  metamorphosed  into 
ideas,  to  which  the  language  of  physiognomy  or  gesture,  or 
the  signs  of  speech  and  writing,  give  an  outward  expression. 
We  conclude  then,  with  an  equal  certitude,  that  the  brain 
digests,  as  it  were,  the  impressions;  that  it  performs  or- 
ganically the  secretion  of  thought." 

The  main  scientific  objection  to  a  belief  in  the  immortal- 
ity of  the  soul  is  thus  clearly  stated  by  Cabaniss,  and  is  a 
plausible  physiological  argument;  it  is  certainly  exercising  a 
tremendous   influence  today  among  men  of  science,  and  is 


»  _ 
>  1  ^ 


-•    -. 


J^ 


>• 


either  tacitly  encouraged  or  directly  taught  in  a  great  many 
of   our   medical   colleges   and   scientific   schools. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  word  "impression"  on  account 
of  its  ambiguity  is  made  to  play  an  important  part  in  Caba- 
niss* statement.  "To  conclude  with  certitude,"  that  the  brain 
"digests  impressions  and  performs  organically  the  secretion 
of  thought,"  is  an  excellent  example  of  an  argument  by  an- 
alogy and  of  a  conclusion  based  upon  metaphor  instead  of 
scientific  fact.  Other  and  more  recent  statements  of  the  pro- 
duction theory  regard  thought  as  a  kind  of  force  liberated 
by  chemical  changes  in  the  brain,  which  give  rise  to  ideas  and 
emotions."  Herbert  Spencer,  usually  classed  with  Huxley 
as  an  agnostic,  upon  this  question  seems  to  favor  this  theory. 
"The  law  of  metamorphosis,"  he  says,  "which  holds  good 
among  the  physical  forces,  holds  equally  between  them  and 
the  mental  forces."  "How  this  is  done,"  he  further  says, 
"is  a  mystery  which  it  is  impossible  to  fathom." 

Professor  James,  in  his  IngersoU  Lecture  at  Harvard  on 
Human  Immortality,  has  answered  this  physiological  objection 
in  a  unique  and  interesting  manner.     He  admits  the  state- 
ment of  facts  as  given  by  the  materialist,  and  even  assumes 
the  correctness  of  the  much  quoted  formula — "Thought  is  a 
function  of  the  brain."    But  he  maintains  as  his  thesis  that  per- 
sonal immortality  is  not  incompatible  with  such  a  statement. 
When  the  physiologist  uses  the  phrase — "Thought  is  a  func- 
tion of  the  brain,"  he  thinks  of  it  just  as  he  does  when  he 
says — "Steam  is  a  function  of  the  tea-kettle,"  or,  "Light  is 
a  function  of  the  electric  current."     These  material  objects 
create  or  generate  their  effects;  so  the  brain  is  supposed  by 
the  materialist  to  create  or  generate  thought.    Of  course,  if  this 
creation  or  generation  is  the  function  of  the  brain,  then,  when 
the  brain  perishes,  the  soul  must  die.     But,  in  the  physical 
world,  productive  function  is  not  the  only  kind  of  function 
with  which  we  are  familiar.    We  have  a  releasing  function,  as 
when  the  trigger  of  the  crossbow  releases  the  string  and  lets 
the  bow  fly  back  to  its  natural  shape;  or  when  the  hammer 
falls  upon  a  detonating  compound,  releases  the  molecular  ob- 
struction and  lets  the  gases  resume  their  normal  bulk.    We  are 
also  familiar  with  the  transmissive  function;  in  the  case  of 
a  prism  or  refracting  lens,  the  energy  of  light  is  sifted,  limited 
in  color,  and  determined  as  to  its  shape,  direction  and  inten- 
sity.    The  lens  does  not  produce  the  light,  it  merely  limits 
and   determines   its   transmission.     James   maintains   that   in 
regarding  thought  as  a  function  of  the  brain,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  think  of  the  productive  function  only;  we  are  entitled 
to  consider  what  the  scientist  usually  leaves  out  of  account, 
the  permissive  or  transmissive  function  of  the  brain.    "Suppose 
the  whole  universe  of  material  things  to  be  a  surf  ace- veil,  hid- 
ing and  keeping  back  the  world  of  genuine  realities  that  are 
seeking   expression  through   material   things.     Suppose  our 


t. 


X       ^ 


• 


y. 


brains  are  such  thin  and  half-transparent  places  in  this  sur- 
rounding veil ;  then  the  genuine  reality,  the  life  of  the  soul,  as 
it  is  in  its  fullness,  may  break  through  our  several  brains 
into  this  world  in  all  sorts  of  restricted,  imperfect  and  dis- 
torted forms,  according  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  individual 
brain  which  forms  the  medium  of  transmission."  But,  it  may 
be  asked,  is  there  any  evidence  in  favor  of  this  transmission 
theory?  Has  any  one  ever  discovered  gleams  of  thought 
breaking  through  this  brain-veil  from  the  larger  consciousness 
without?  No.  What  then?  Ask  for  any  proof  or  evidence 
of  the  fact  that  the  brain  produces  thought,  and  science  has 
none  to  give.  If  one  theory  is  fantastic,  so  is  the  other.  If  the 
transmission  theory  is  transcendental,  the  production  theory  is 
equally  so.  Ask  for  an  explanation  of  the  exact  process  of 
either  theory,  and  science  confesses  herself  impotent.  In 
speaking  of  thought  as  a  function  of  the  brain,  science  can 
mean  nothing  but  concomitant  variation.  All  that  science 
can  gather  from  observation  of  facts  is  uniform  concomitance. 
Along  with  every  act  of  consciousness  we  will  find  a  molecular 
change  in  the  substance  of  the  brain  which  involves  a  waste  of 
tissue  and  disintegration  of  cellular  matter.  This  is  all  that 
science  can  assert,  and  all  "talk  about  either  production  or 
transmission  as  a  process  is  pure  metaphysical  hypothesis." 

James'  interpretation  of  brain  function  as  transmission 
rather  than  production  robs  materialism  of  its  fatal  conse- 
quence. It  admits  all  the  real  facts  that  science  presents,  and 
at  the  same  time  makes  possible,  if  not  probable,  the  survival 
of  the  soul  after  death.  Professor  James  in  his  argument  sim- 
ply demonstrates  the  invalidity  of  the  objections  of  science 
to  the  doctrine  of  immortality.  If  science  objects  to  the  reason- 
ing of  the  idealist  as  metaphysical,  James  proves  that  science 
herself  in  the  very  statement  of  her  objections  enters  the 
field  of  metaphysics,  and  must  be  driven  back  to  her  own 
domain.  No  real  science  should  be  content  to  rest  the  validity 
of  her  conclusions  upon  abstractions,  inferences  and  analo- 
gies. 

The  theory  of  transmission  as  an  explanation  of  the  re- 
lation of  the  spiritual  to  the  material  has  already  assumed 
prominence  in  the  philosophy  of  pragmatism.  Schiller,  in  his 
great  work  entitled  the  ^'Riddles  of  the  Sphinx,"  develops 
the  theory  at  length  from  the  standpoint  of  evolution.  He 
says:  *'The  fact  that  material  organization  rises  in  complex- 
ity and  power  with  the  development  of  consciousness  does  not 
justify  the  inference  that  it  is  the  cause  of  the  development 
of  consciousness.  If  growth  in  complexity  is  accepted  as  the 
universal  law  of  evolution  in  all  things,  there  need  be  no 
causal  relation  between  the  increasing  complexity  of  physical 
organism  and  gradual  development  of  consciousness."  Again, 
"If  the  world  process  represents  a  gradual  harmonizing  of 
the  Deity  and  the  Ego,  it  must  bring  with  it  an  increase  in 


♦    m  v 


■iy'f^ 


-^V 


x\      I   ^^ 


the  intercourse  and  interaction  between  them.     The  greater 
intensity  and  the  greater  number  of  relations  between  the  Ego 
and  the  Deity  would  generate  an  intenser  consciousness  on 
the  one  side  (i.  e.,  the  Soul)  and  a  more  complex  organization 
on  the  other  (the  body).    Thus  the  materialist  explanation  of 
the  fact  would  in  both  of  these  cases  be  a  fallacy  of  cum  hoc 
ergo  propter  hoc,  and  confuse  a  parallelism  due  to  a  common 
origin,  with  causal  dependence.  .   .   .    The  material  organization 
in  the  evolution  of  the  individual  is  a  mechanism  which  sets 
free  consciousness.  .    .    .     Matter  is  an  admirably  calculated 
machinery   for   regulating,  limiting  and   restraining  the  con- 
sciousness which  it  encases.     So,  if  the  organism  is  coarse 
and  simple,  as  in  the  lower  animals;  it  permits  only  a  little 
intelligence   to   permeate   through;   if   delicate   and   complex, 
there  are  greater  possibilities  for  the  manifestations  of  con- 
sciousness."    Schiller  makes  the  present  life  unreal  on  ac- 
count of  the  resistance  of  the  physical  organism  to  the  in- 
pressing  consciousness  of  the  Divine,  and  says  that  the  hypnotic 
or  dream-consciousness  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  normal 
consciousness  that  the  normal  bears  to  the  ultimate.    "In  each 
case,"  he  says,  "the  lower  is  related  to  the  higher  as  the  actual 
to  the  potential ;  while  we  sleep,  our  dream-consciousness  is  all 
that  is  actual,  and  our  waking  self  exists  only  potentially; 
while  we  live  on  earth,  our  normal  consciousness  alone   is 
actual,  and  our  true  selves  are  the  ideals  of  unrealized  aspira- 
tions.    On  this  analogy  then  we  may  say  that  the  lower  ani- 
mals are  still  entranced  in  the  lower  stages  of  brute  lethargy, 
while  we  have  passed  into  the  higher  phase  of  somnambulism, 
which  already  permits  us  strange  glimpses  of  a  lucidity  that 
divines  the  realities  of  a  transcendent  world.     In  the  course 
of  evolution  our  conception  of  the  interaction  between  us  and 
the  Deity  would  come  to  correspond  more  and  more  to  reality, 
until    at    the   completion   of   the   process,   the   last   thin   veil 
would  be  rent  asunder,  and  the  perfected  spirits  would  be- 
hold  the   undimmed   splendor   of   truth   in   the   light   of   the 
countenance  of  God."     The  pragmatic  philosophy  of   Schil-. 
ler  seems  to  find  most  striking  and  substantial  confirmation 
in  that  of  St.  Paul— For  now  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly ; 
but  then  face  to  face:  now  I  know  in  part;  but  then  shall  I 
know  even  also  as  I  am  known. 

It  is  evident  that  neither  the  production  theory  nor  the 
transmission  theory  offers  any  conclusive  scientific  explana- 
tion of  the  genesis  of  the  soul  or  of  its  relation  to  the  body. 
Nervous  physiology  teaches  us  only  that  each  particular  mental 
act  is  accompanied  by  a  particular  cerebral  act.  Science  is 
nothing  but  the  codification  of  experience  and  is  helpless  with- 
out the  data  furnished  by  observation.  The  belief  in  immor- 
tality requires  evidence  that  the  phenomena  we  call  mental 
can  subsist  apart  from  the  phenomena  we  call  material.  This 
evidence  science  cannot  furnish  until  we  have  had  some  de- 


monstrable  experimental  knowledge  of  a  human  soul  disas- 
sociated from  the  human  body. 

If  we  grant  that  the  two  theories  presented, — the  production 
theory  and  the  transmission  theory, — are  of  equal  validity  or  in- 
validity, as  you  please;  if  we  admit  that  the  two  simply  bal- 
ance each  other  in  their  evidential  claims,  which  should  we  as 
pragmatists  prefer?  Let  us  apply  the  test  of  pragmatism. 
Both  theories  being  admittedly  equal  so  far  as  scientific  evi- 
dence is  concerned,  we  must  trace  the  practical  consequences 
of  each.  What  difference  would  it  make  to  anybody  whether 
the  one  or  the  other  be  true?  If  no  practical  difference  in 
their  consequences  for  the  future  can  be  seen,  then  the  alter- 
natives mean  practically  the  same  thing  and  further  discus- 
sion would  be  useless.  But  it  does  make  an  enormous  differ- 
ence, and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  pragmatism  finds  in  the  trans- 
mission explanation  overwhelming  practical  reasons  for  pref- 
erence. With  John  Fiske,  we  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that 
man's  highest  spiritual  qualities,  upon  the  development  of 
which  so  much  creative  energy  has  been  expended,  must  at 
last  prove  ephemeral,  *'like  a  bubble  that  bursts  or  a  vision 
that  fades."  To  say  nothing  of  the  various  theological  and 
metaphysical  reasons  for  a  belief  in  a  future  life,  the  value 
of  such  a  belief  as  a  practical  incentive  for  the  right  ordering 
of  our  present  life  becomes  an  important  element  in  the 
scale  of  reason,  and  with  Voltaire  and  Rousseau,  we  must  de- 
fend the  life  of  the  soul  after  the  decay  of  the  body  in 
spite  of  theoretical  difficulties,  on  the  ground  of  its  prac- 
tical necessity.  The  pragmatist  takes  this  chance,  because, 
as  Edmund  Gurney  says, — "It  is  this  that  makes  all  the  differ- 
ence between  a  life  of  which  the  keynote  is  resignation  and 
a  life  of  which  the  keynote  is  hope." 

There  is  still  another  reason  for  the  pragmatistic  assump- 
tion. Psycho-physics  and  physiological  psychology  by  the 
production  theory  and  its  inevitable  consequences,  lead  us  up 
against  a  blind  wall;  they  abruptly  close  and  seal  the  book  of 
4ife  both  for  this  world  and  the  next,  with  the  last  human 
breath.  The  transmission  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  leaves 
an  open  door  for  a  future  science  of  psychology  to  receive  and 
interpret  an  important  class  of  alleged  psychic  facts,  which 
ultimately  may  be  found  to  harmonize  with  it,  and  which 
eventually  may  provide  the  desired  experimental  proof  of 
human  immortality. 

Psychology  as  a  science  today  has  done  little  more  than 
to  record  the  leading  facts  of  our  normal  consciousness.  As 
a  science  of  the  soul  in  its  totality  of  manifestation,  it  must 
be  still  regarded  as  in  a  nascent  stage.  It  is  little  more 
than  what  chemistry  and  astronomy  were  a  few  hundred  years 
ago  in  their  dim  and  blind  beginnings,  when  a  few  Monks 
in  their  cloisters  sought  the  philosopher's  stone  and  the  elixir 
of  life,  and  the  Chaldean  shepherds  reverently  watched  the 

10 


•  \ 


4^^|4^ 


.  .♦•' 


/; 


7^ 


J*  .i 


courses  of  the  stars.  Pragmatism  recognizes  as  a  possibility 
the  rise  of  another  Priestly  or  Newton  who  will  yet  reduce 
psychology  to  a  practical  science  like  chemistry  and  astronomy. 
It  awaits  the  advent  of  another  Columbus,  who  shall  discover 
for  us  a  new  world. 

It  is  a  mistaken  idea  that  science  needs  only  facts  for  the 
advancement  of  truth.  Of  what  use  are  facts,  if  men  having 
eyes,  see  not,  and  having  ears,  hear  not?  The  facts  of  elec- 
tricity, radium  and  the  Roentgen  ray  bombarded  mankind  for 
ages  before  they  found  the  observant  eye  and  the  attentive 
ear.  "The  three  important  factors  in  the  progress  of  science," 
says  Schiller,  "are  fact,  interpretation  and  prejudice,  and  th©. 
greatest  of  these  is  prejudice."  It  is  prejudice  that  determines 
the  interpretation,  and  interpretation  in  turn  selects  and  de- 
termines the  facts.  A  formidable  array  of  eccentric  psychic 
phenomena  have  bombarded  humanity  for  ages,  and  they  still 
continue  to  interest  and  entertain  us;  but  as  they  chance  to 
run  counter  to  the  preconceived  ideas  of  theology  and  science, 
they  generally  meet  with  ridicule  and  jest  rather  than  serious 
investigation.  The  phenomena  of  Witchcraft,  Swedenborg- 
I'anism,  Dream-consciousness,  Multiple  Personality,  Spiritism 
and  a  long  line  of  exceptional  psychic  manifestations  extending 
down  to  Christian  Science  and  the  Emanuel  Movement  of 
our  day,  stand  out  boldly  as  a  challenge  to  modern  science. 
The  Society  of  Psychical  Research  during  the  past  twenty-five 
years,  under  the  leadership  of  such  eminent  scientists  as 
Myers,  Podmore,  Gurney,  Hodgson,  Wallace  and  Sir  William 
Crookes,  has  accumulated  a  mass  of  facts  and  experimental 
data;  and  while  these  pioneers  have  exposed  much  of  fraud, 
humbug  and  imposture,  they  have  also  succeeded  in  establish- 
ing at  least  the  canons  of  a  new  science.  The  most  important 
exposition  of  the  society's  investigations  up  to  the  present 
time  is  the  great  work  of  Frederick  Myers  on  "Human  Per- 
sonality." Of  this  work  Mr.  Schiller  says,  after  a  critical 
review,  that  "Myers'  interpretation  has  for  the  first  time 
rendered  a  future  life  scientifically  conceivable  and  rendered 
much  more  probable  the  other  considerations  in  its  favor. 
And,  above  all,  it  has  rendered  it  definitely  provable."  One 
of  the  great  merits  of  Myers'  work  is  the  fact  that  it  is 
thoroughly  scientific  in  its  spirit  and  method.  His  demand 
throughout  is  for  further  observation  and  keener  experimenta- 
tion. It  may  well  be  that  in  the  future  the  successors  of 
Meyers  and  his  colleagues  may  gradually  develop  a  body 
of  consistent  interpretations  of  the  human  consciousness  as 
a  whole,  "and  then,"  as  Mr.  Schiller  remarks,  "human  immor- 
tality will  be  scientifically  proved.  Until  then,  it  will  remain  a 
matter  of  belief,  however  probable  it  grows." 

All  these  exceptional  psychic  experiences  will  naturally 
prove  paradoxical  and  meaningless  under  the  production 
theory  of  mental  life;  but  under  the  transmission  theory  we 

11 


if 


need  only  to  suppose  our  normal  consciousness  to  be  in  touch 
with  a  larger  consciousness  beyond,  and  the  variations  will 
be  explicable  by  the  possible  changes  in  the  brain  as  the  me- 
dium of  transmission. 

We  are  prepared  today  to  recognize  the  operation  of  natural 
law  in  the  spiritual  world;  we  have  become  familiar  with  its 
operation  within  spheres  hitherto  regarded  as  supernatural. 
Superstition  is  gradually  yielding  to  knowledge  and  faith  still 
presses  forward  into  the  larger  fields  beyond.  The  natural- 
ization of  the  supernatural  is  a  historical  process  upon  which 
we  dare  not  impose  a  limit.  Side  by  side  with  tliis  process, 
we  find  the  increasing  spiritualization  of  matter.  The  gulf 
between  the  properties  of  matter  and  those  of  spirit  is  con- 
stantly diminishing,  and  the  analogies  between  material  and 
spiritual  phenomena  are  becoming  more  and  more  conspicuous. 
The  modern  scientific  conception  of  matter,  with  its  invisible 
forces,  its  impalpable  energies,  and  its  imponderable  sub- 
stances, is  something  quite  different  from  the  simple  matter  of 
primitive  experience  and  common  life.  The  spiritualization 
of  matter  and  the  naturalization  of  the  supernatural  seem  to 
indicate  the  development  of  matter  and  spirit  along  converg- 
ing lines,  and  when  their  processes  transcend  the  limits  of  the 
sensible  and  the  powers  of  the  finite,  their  manifestations 
may  merge  into  the  one  ultimate  and  indestructible  reality, 
existent  under   forms  and  conditions  now  incomprehensible. 

But,  at  present,  in  the  absence  of  demonstrable  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  any  scientific  theory  as  to  the  origin  or  destiny 
of  the  human  soul,  I  am  willing  to  risk  my  personal  belief 
in  human  immortality  upon  other  than  scientific  grounds, 
and  to  conclude  with  Professor  James:  "The  whole  drift 
of  my  education  goes  to  persuade  me  that  the  world  of  our 
present  consciousness  is  only  one  out  of  many  worlds  of  con- 
sciousness that  exist,  and  that  those  other  worlds  must  con- 
tain experiences  which  have  a  meaning  for  our  life  also;  and 
that  although,  in  the  main,  their  experiences  and  those  of  this 
world  keep  discrete,  yet  the  two  become  continuous  at  cer- 
tain points,  and  higher  energies  filter  in;  By  being  faithful 
in  my  poor  measure  to  this  over-belief,  I  seem  to  myself 
to  keep  more  sane  and  true." 


« 


i) 


» 


i 

(V-.i' 


(I 


^■* 


•I 


IS 


